Shanobi said:
Alterego-X said:
disolitude said:
Has this guy ever written a non-nintendo fanboy article?
In his eyes it looks like Nintendo = disruption.
Well guess what, Sega genesis = disruption towards then Nintendo empire in gearing the games to a more mature audience
Sony playstation = disruption for tecnology advancements and selling hardware at a loss.
Malstrom should really get off his Nintendo high horse...
Yes Nintendo is number 1 thanks to their disruption, but there was time when nintendo was being disrupted. |
Dude, are you just using "disruption" as a synonym of "being successful"?
The disruption theory is a very well defined business practice that involves finding and serving the least demanding customers, with products thats quality is too low for the core market, earn big profits in the expanded market, and later go upstream against the competitors and their sustaining innovations.
"tecnology advancements" are, by definition, the OPPOSITE of disruption. It is a sustaining innovation.
"selling hardware at a loss" is called the "razor and blades model", another well-defined business strategy. Yes, it can work, but that won't make it disruptive alone.
"gearing the games to a more mature audience" is either sustaining innovation, (making it better), or maybe "blue ocean strategy" (finding a new audience). But unless thesee were crummy products for crummy customers, it is not disruption.
|
If by "sustaining innovation", you mean all of the ideas that Nintendo's competitor's have swiped from them, then sure. I hope you don't mean that their innovation was pushing systems to have a graphical upgrade, 'cause I wouldn't call that innovative.
Innovation simply means "new". There are different levels of it, though.
Something surprisingly original, but still clearly more advanced than its predecessors, like the space shuttle, the light bulb, or the atomic bomb, or 3D gaming would be a "revolutuionary sustaining innovation"
Something expectedly better than its predecessor, an upgraded version, like the SD->HD consoles, or the CD->DVD->BR, are "evolutionary sustaining innovations"
And I'd like to see where you got this definition of the blue ocean being about "crummy" products for "crummy" customers. Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes.
You misunderstood my post, I was saying that Sega WAS "blue ocean" and WAS NOT disruptive, because crummy products would be a sign of DISRUPTION, NOT blue ocean.
And this definition was used by Scott Anthony, co-author of the disruption books. Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwhM9YvUINY&eurl=http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/page/3/&feature=player_embedded
|
